Banning Senthil Mallar's Book. ... Hysteric reaction!!

The Tamil Nadu government’s banning of Meendezhum Pandiyar Varalaaru (“Resurgence of Pandya History”), a Tamil work by K. Senthil Mallar and its subsequent invoking of sedition against the author is atrocious. A society which is afraid to read, see or listen to reconstructed histories betrays a lack of confidence in itself. In a democratic country, it is shameful to ban a book especially when no one has read it. Banning a book means banning ideas and thoughts. It is indeed unfortunate that a book on the history of Pallars, who were hitherto subjugated to caste based discrimination, is being banned. Such a knee-jerk reaction smacks of considerations other than the merit of the book. A mature democracy should not proscribe a history book apart from those exceptional cases when it is absolutely necessary to maintain public order. An author presents his opinion to the readers, who can either accept it or reject it. It is they who should decide the fate of this book, and the state should not stifle dissenting opinion.

The Supreme Court in a number of cases has emphasised that our commitment to the freedom of expression demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the community interest is endangered. In this case, the anticipated danger is remote, conjectural and far-fetched and doesn’t have proximate and direct nexus with the expression. Knowledge of history equips people with political consciousness and acumen, which is necessary for peace and prosperity. Recent attempts to rewrite history books, correcting colonial and other distortions are meeting with fierce resistance from vested interests. Instead of engaging in debate, they seek to avoid change with cries of sedition. Rewriting of history does not mean fabrication or sedition. If the government were to be allowed to ban the book, a more serious danger is it might use this precedent in future against all other critical writings against the government. Such an eventuality would be a serious blow to one of the cardinal principles of our Constitution — the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to every person. The Government should learn to trap the message, not the messenger.

We in this country have had embarrassing instances of book banning both by Central and state governments. There has been a lot of criticism and the image of the country as a free, open society has suffered. The strong support of Voltaire for free speech “I disagree with every word you say but I shall fight to death for your right to say so,” needs to be constantly remembered by the governments. It is time, we should show courage and raise our voice against the banning of books.

For your Reading The Hindu Editorial dated 26-06-2013

The Tamil Nadu government is palpably in error in invoking the penal provision of sedition against the author of a book that it banned last month. The book, Meendezhum Pandiyar Varalaaru (“Resurgence of Pandya History”), a Tamil work by K. Senthil Mallar, argues that the Pallars, a Dalit community, had once ruled southern Tamil Nadu. Extracts given in the government notification ordering forfeiture of all copies of the book suggest the author has made loose assertions and claims about various groups, as well as sweeping generalisations about different castes. Though such writing is ill-advised in these hypersensitive times, the May 30, 2013 government notification surely exaggerates when it claims that “the content and language employed by the author clearly reveals his intention to spread hatred and disharmony among communities in the guise of research and thereby to cause disturbance to the public peace and tranquillity.” A book that runs to more than 600 pages and purports to be based on research ought not to be banned simply because its thesis and arguments are controversial. While historians, scholars and others have the right to refute or critique the author’s claims, or even campaign against the book being taken seriously, the government cannot decide on the authenticity or historicity of events in his book or indeed the accuracy or acceptability of opinions found in it.

In any event, regardless of whether the ban amounts to a reasonable restriction on the author’s freedom of expression, the slapping of sedition charges seems to be an invidious attempt to throttle him and the viewpoint he represents. The book’s contents may, at a stretch, perhaps attract legal provisions relating to creating disharmony between different sections of society, but definitely not sedition. Sedition involves promoting disaffection against the government established by law, but it is doubtful whether merely making some explosive claims about sections of society can come under its ambit. In recent times, the use of the sedition charge in Tamil Nadu and elsewhere has been questionable. It was invoked against activists engaged in the prolonged agitation against the Kudankulam nuclear project in a bid to portray the protest as anti-national activity. For those who see this book’s subject as a form of Dalit assertion and an effort by an oppressed community to reconstruct its past, the ban as well as the sedition case against the author may mean that alternative histories are being suppressed by the authorities to placate dominant communities. There is indeed a strong case to question the State’s approach without undermining its legitimate right to take steps to maintain communal harmony.